Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: HiTech RedNeck; All

There is nothing else for Priebus to refer to when he says “you can’t federalize that kind of mandate” and “individual states can make that decision on their own” other than Romney now making a no-go on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

If Romney completely leaves this up to the states as Priebus says, then you defederalize the issue. Add that to Priebus saying that Romney also doesn’t want to federalize this kind of mandate, the it is clear that no federal intervention and leaving this up to the states and you have Romney exposed for trying to piviot away from his past support for a ban on same-sex marriage.

I can’t believe that you still trust Romney on any issue. He is a flip-flopper par excellence.


22 posted on 05/09/2012 3:13:28 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Romney would have no legal say in a constitutional amendment. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Void. Null. How emphatic can we get?


24 posted on 05/09/2012 3:18:58 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Mitt! You're going to have to try harder than that to be "severely conservative" my friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson